Personally I would rather they go faster, to speeds that no human could feasibly manage, than see them slow down. Of course, erecting fences along driverless roads would probably be ideal in that case.

I think he means the bunch - spread - bunch - spread of traffic slowing and speeding up that you get with lane changers, idiot drivers, middle lane managers and so on. Breaking, when it's busy can have a mile long knock-on effect on cars behind you. Of course, when there's noone on the road, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. We as drivers, are fairly bad at being a swarm and acting as one. We're all very selfish. I'll take computer managed driving on motorways any day.

I've seen what happens when drivers are not selfish. Two lanes approach a stoplight. Most of the traffic wants to turn right, and can do so even if the light is red, but the "not selfish" driver who doesn't pay attention to the fact that there's another lane (with no cars in it) ends up sitting at the front of the overly-full lane, stopping traffic flow.

Actually I'd agree. The average densely packed freeway moves at a rate and a following distance where pretty much the only choice in the event of anything bad happening is to plug the brakes. That causes a cascade effect, and you wind up with a slow spot that takes hours to dissipate. We need more space between vehicles and drivers trained to do something other than panic stop, or lower speeds to give people time to react more rationally. Or computerized drivers.

Goddammit, I sound like a fucking eco-hippie. I'm a single guy with six cars, four of which are purely for fun, and I'm arguing for lower speed limits. Actually, I guess I'm arguing for better drivers.

Personally, I wouldn't mind being able to hand control over to a computer in dense traffic, but I want control back when I exit onto surface roads or get out of congested freeway areas. I drive as much for the fun of it as to actually go anywhere.

As a Californian resident I would like to thank you for helping alleviate the burden of crappy California drivers in this state. In fact, we are probably going to run our politicians out of this state in your general direction pretty soon too. We don't have much use for them anymore. But we are keeping our oceans, mountains, and hot movie-star-wannabe bimbos and there's nothing you can do about it! =P

Once you get rid of all of the undesirables...would California be interested in a few Nevada residents? I hate the snow and love the beach, I may be in the wrong state. I promise to not let Microsoft drive my car and to never vote ex-movie stars into public office.

As a nearly-lifetime California resident, I think you should be grateful for some Californians; When I see a Nevada plate, 95% of the time I notice because of shitty driving. And yes, I do just check out plates when I have idle time.

Hence the rentals portion of my statement. Most of them are too drunk to realize that they aren't really going anywhere and besides, they rented the deluxe super-sized SAV, so you can't really expect them to just park it in a garage?

Doesn't matter, it will be 20+ years before this hits the masses. Assuming they offered it tomorrow in the latest Mercedes it would be a $10,000 option that few would bother with. It's like cadalliac offering nightvision on their 2000 DTS, almost no one bought that option and here 11 years later still very few cars offer nightvision. Same with laser cruise control that can slow the car down or even stop if it sees something ahead, Lexus and Mercedes have had that for 5+ years but I still dont see it offe

In the very long term, automated cars able to coordinate their driving will be more efficient. There will be fewer driving accidents and people will get where they are going faster. In the short term this sort of technology is more likely to be first actually used when it is limited to highway driving (which is comparatively simple) before it becomes useful for general driving. Unfortunately, it could take only a few bad accidents before people will start reacting strongly against automated systems even if the systems are safer than humans on average. This is sort of what we're seeing now already with nuclear power: the death toll from nuclear power is much smaller than coal, but nuclear power is treated as terrible because the accidents are rare and spectacular and involve a technology that is seen as novel, strange and unnatural.

The real key will be getting insurance companies behind the new tech. If these cars truly are safer (and all evidence shows that they are), then insurers will love them (since they'll have to pay out fewer claims), and will be happy to ensure they succeed by lobbying whoever necessary.

It's likely, of course, that the costs of that insurance will be added into the price of the car, with car company's marketing department making the point that one would be paying a bit more for a car that resulted in paying vastly less for personal car insurance. It would have the added benefit of making car companies more worried about safety and accident prevention.

There's still a lot more people with a fear of driving than with a fear of travelling in a car. It's all about not being in control, the standard mind says "I'm behind the wheel controlling this car, so I'm safe, but I have no idea what the pilot's doing so I may or may not be safe..."

Of course the benefits of flying outweigh the fear factor for most people, and in time automated cars will probably gain as much trust as we have in airplanes, but it will take time to bring the public perception around to the

Over the last decade I've spent a little over a year of my life sitting in traffic on U.S. 101 (anyone else here ever wonder why the metering lights are never on at the 101/85 junction?). I have spent much of this time contemplating the possibilities of self-driving cars, and reached the following conclusions:

it would have to be done in some other country first, because people here will consider it "Unamerican" to not be able to drive your own car.

I think you underestimate the skill of the people designing these cars. I'm not an aggressive driver myself, and I've found that all you need to do when you're targeted is lift off the gas and let them get on their merry way. Plus the range of sensors means it can see the person 4 lanes over as he starts to go perpendicular to traffic to make his exit and start backing off way back then.

Convincing people not to drive their own cars will probably take an entire generation. Once everyone who is alive today ha

Speak for yourself. Driving is no longer a 'cool, new experience' for some of us who would rather do something else while being driven. I, for one, would love to gain back my hour a day commute as time I could be doing something other than paying attention to traffic.

...live drivers will target them, tailgating or cutting them off in ways the software can't compensate for.

With all the sensors onboard watching in all directions, you'd think it'd be easy to keep the evidence of the other guy's stupidity. In the case of a crash you'd probably have all kinds or proof as to who was at fault. Maybe these cars should have a "report-an-asshole" button that sends data to the cops. Someone who gets pinged by that enough times would maybe get sent back to drivers training school. (someone who hit the button without good cause too many times would also get talked to)

I don't think you'll have to report an asshole to the cops. Onstar already calls you if the car notices a massive deacceleration or acceleration (hit from behind). There's a YouTube video of a supercharged cadalliac cts-v doing a 11 second quarter and Onstar calls them and says they noticed a rapid acceleration and asked if they needed assistance. If we did have driveless cars no doubt the sensors would automatically notify local enforcement that the vehicle was cut off and provide photographic evidence.

Driverless cars will never happen because they can kill people. It's like anything humans use to do, if you wash dishes by hand you'll eventually break a dish, but if a dishwasher broke dishes OMG alert the press. If a driverless car had even the remote chance of killing someone that would be the end of driverless cars. We will eventually have cars that could drive themselves, cruise control that can stop and steering that stays in the lane, but it won't be called "driverless" and it won't work without a

Cars that drive themselves have the potential to be virtually crash-proof, even under adverse conditions. We'll wonder why we ever allowed ourselves to drive in the first place.

Until then, it will be interesting to see what deficiencies in our road designs and traffic laws these self-driving cars discover. For example, when making a right turn onto a road just after the speed limit sign, how will the computer know what the speed limit is? Faced with trying to make a left turn onto a road with a steady strea

You're a bit more keen on their chances than I am. People underestimate risks when they are in control.

In 2009 there were 30,797 traffic-related fatalities [dot.gov] in the USA. If we could cut that in half with self-driving cars that'd be amazingly good. But the public wouldn't go for it because now the machine is in control, so the risk is overestimated.

How many stories would we see about "killer cars that account for 10,000 traffic deaths per year"? How many people wouldn't buy them because of how "unsafe" they are?

We don't see stories about that because there doesn't appear to be any solution short of simply not driving.

Contrast that to the problem of impaired driving. Used to kill a lot of people. The solution was obvious, increase (drastically) the firms and penalties for driving while under the influence, couple that with extensive marketing and you get a corresponding reduction in fatalities.

Once there is solution that can start to drastically reduce traffic accidents (and associated injuries, fatalities and prop

I'd say it'll take at least a couple decades to make the switch, given the ever-rising cost of cars, the longer finance cycles that most people are on, and the longer lifespan of modern vehicles. My two daily drivers are both 16+ years old, and I have no intention of getting rid of them any time soon. They're cheap to operate. My 2008 truck largely sits in the driveway, but when I need to move big stuff or drive through a blizzard, it's darn handy.

Winter driving in general will be a huge issue, humans who otherwise are capable drivers typically go all nuts on even light snow. Simply lowering speed isn't the answer either. Going to slow can easily mean getting stuck (especially going up hills). Worse can sometimes be going down hills, where even in neutral you can slide and may need to actually add gas to straighten out...

More than anything I guess I just don't trust a programmer in Cali who has never even seen snow let alone driven in it to know what

You're part of the problem. What the FUCK are you doing going downhill on a wintry road in NEUTRAL? Low gear, let the engine keep the vehicle running at a constant, controlled speed. Don't use your brakes or FUCKING NEUTRAL (?!?) to do that!

I don't use neutral, but I can tell you many snow driving courses teach neutral for going down hills in snow... My Ex only learned how to drive a couple years ago. Still hasn't passed and has taken the only two winter driving courses offered here. Both taught 'neutral' as the technique to use. They also taught that brakes are your friend, another thing that is rubbish. Now stop complaining about how I'm the idiot when I'm not talking about myself, nor suggesting what you are complaining about?

A computer can measure the slip on all 4 tires independently, apply brakes only to tires that have grip, compensate for skids properly (a lot of people steer the wrong way in a skid), and ideally even communicate to other cars about the location of slippery areas. A human has 2-3 petals, a wheel, and some form of shifter for control. The computer is going to do a far better job than we can.

Brakes are the last thing you want in snow on a hill in either direction. The hard part for a car controlling program is that each incident is somewhat different, so exactly what needs to be done will change. So the computer can try the standard method, but will have problems when things don't go as someone plans. On the other hand a person can know in general what they need to do and vary it as needed. It's actually what we are best at. We may have more limited total control over the car, but a good driver

In regards to winter driving, we've already got a solution that works quite well called Stability/Traction Control. It's part of the ABS system, so you now have the needed sensors to detect if a wheel is slipping/spinning on ice and the computer can compensate. Of course it's the cause of more fatalities as people driving models equiped with it tend to over-drive based on conditions but a computer will not.

I agree there are lots of interesting questions to work out with robotic cars. Your first point, though, is easily handled by a standard GPS map database. It would only have to read temporary speed limit signs.

For your second case, my hope is that it would find another route (right turn, U turn, etc), which is what a safe human driver would do. I don't think you'd ever want them making an unsafe dart through cross traffic. Unless of course you want to put an AI for frogger into your car, which has the

For example, when making a right turn onto a road just after the speed limit sign, how will the computer know what the speed limit is?

You answered your own question in the next sentence. Local laws. For example, Pennsylvania law declares that, unless otherwise marked, the speed limit is 35 in urban areas, 55 in rural. Urban and rural have regular definitions, as well. And, from what I understand, if you can prove you had no way to see the sign, but were going under the statutory default limit, you have a de

The first is actually simple to solve. You can make a grid of gps coordinates and assign a speed to each. Reading speed limit signs would be the worst way to tell the car's computer what the speed is, since they are often defaced, removed, or even shot up by drunk teenagers. There's already tech to tell you, via gps database, what the speed limit is. I have an app on my phone that does this. It's a HUD app that warns me when I'm speeding.As far as a left turn into a busy street goes, the car could send a si

Of course, before your driverless car goes out dumping bodies, you'll need a driverless backhoe to go out and dig the holes first.

I mean, you gotta have the hole already dug before you show up with a package in the trunk. Otherwise, you're talking about a half-hour to forty-five minutes worth of digging. And who knows who's gonna come along in that time? Pretty soon, you gotta dig a few more holes. You could be there all fuckin' night.

One thing that I have not heard or read about is bound to be one of the first things that somebody will sue over, so it should be taken care of first: who will be liable when one of these gets into a wreck?

Depends. if the cars are "100% guaranteed not to cause accidents", then it could be the manufacturer. But since I doubt any car company will put something like that on a car, it will probably be the owner.

I agree with you. I wouldn't go to a self-driving car until EVERYONE used them and I knew that, not just buggy code had been worked out, but that there aren't still people driving themselves around (which, in a world where cars are driverless could be almost as dangerous as we consider a driverless car to be today)

You'll need special insurance for the cars. The insurance companies will negotiate with the manufacturer to share the burden of responsibility. The manufacturer will have insurance protecting them too.

The cars will have all of their sensor data recorded. If the other person is at fault, they will have a much higher chance of taking the blame.

Autonomous vehicles are going to make owning your own vehicle uneconomical anyway. You won't buy insurance because you won't own a vehicle. Businesses that own and operate fleets will negotiate with the insurance for you. Eventually.

The transition from today to ubiquitous use is going to be messy, but large changes often are.

But in fact there will be a lot of driverless cars driving around. For example your car drops you off at the front door at work and then drives itself to the parking lot or perhaps home to drive the kids to school or to the local battery charging station or just around the block a few times while you pick something up and go and wait for it to take you to your first appointment. A lot of deliveries will get done without anyone in the vehicle

Am I the only one that sees the potential for serious abuses should driverless vehicles become massively adopted and standardized?

Roadways are ALWAYS under construction, which means that static map data inside the vehicle is never going to be an option. The vehicles will *HAVE* to connect to the internet in some fashion to pull updated maps.

It might be well within the tinfoil hat arena, but I can clearly see this being used to kill somebody. Case in point:

You have at least 3 ways to use that word in this particular situation:

1) Sensible from the systems design point of view, where security of the vehicle and its occupant are given priority. (the one you chose.)

2) Sensible from the hardware design point of view, where things like dirt, corrosion, vibrational damage, etc are all going to deteriorate sensor function, leading to the vehicle thinking it is approaching a wall or other obstacle when it really isnt, because it

The car control computers are going to have to be doing what humans should be doing today - being situationally aware and discarding routes that conflict with direct observations. Just like a car shouldn't turn left into a pedestrian, it also shouldn't turn left into a bridge guardrail or off the pavement. GPS maps are going to have to be used for routing, and local, realtime sensors and vision algorithms are going to be needed for operation. It's just that rather than being biological, they'll be electr

The problem is that "Common sense" (admittedly lacking in the people who drive off bridges. I did not say I did so, only that my TTN software suggested that I do so, then bitched mightily about my being offroute when I failed to do so when it said to. I believe my exact words were "Fuck that shit!" before continuing over the bridge in the sane and rational fashion.) is extremely difficult to imbue to a computer.

Automatic driving systems would be at the mercy of the quality of the GPS maps, the GPS reciever

The current reality seems more like the parent answer ("GPS maps are going to have to be used for routing, and local, realtime sensors and vision algorithms are going to be needed for operation.") than yours ("Automatic driving systems would be at the mercy of the quality of the GPS maps, the GPS reciever hardware").

Cars following GPS instructions are still faraway dream, except for a few concept cars and experimental designs (like the google's one).Whereas traffic lane exit alarm and collision avoidance sy

Call me "that tinfoil hat guy," but isn't this just another way to take away freedoms if abused? There are plenty of benefits, sure, but there are also many who want to know where you are, lock your car, and wait kindly for the reeducation agents to arrive.

I like my car. I like modding my car, and I sure like driving the way I do (like a maniac, thx Boston). This seems like a great way to censor that little bit of rule breaking, which has saved my life more than once.Just couldn't help thinking Minority

At least, that's what they look like of you're following them. You can't say someone's actually "driving" the car if they can't even see over the steering wheel. Just like you can't say they're parking it if their "acoustic sensor system" is the sound the other car makes when they back into it.

They're not really driving - they're playing a game of chance... like their bingo nights, but on public roads.

That's just my latest cyber-stalker - APK, the "hosts file guy." Yesterday he was accusing me of being greedy because I run a website where I allow people to download code I wrote that I license under the GPL version 2. He thought his hosts file was "blocking the ads" - there never were any ads, and the moron would have been able to see that if he had been using a more modern ad-blocking technique that allowed for disabling blocking on a per-site basis.